The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @077 · 00:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
This article appears to succeed in all the above areas. It seems that this article must be considered notable. There has been significant press coverage of Fisher in the Anchorage area (Radio, television, newspaper) and all over Alaska. 74.114.84.100 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)— 74.114.84.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment – The coverage is hardly significant. Additionally, please see WP:RS for a further discussion on reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Ttonyb1 Why isn't coverage across Alaska significant? Alaska is a huge landmass, and I would have thought if it was covered State-wide it would be classed as significant. County-wide I could understand as non-significant, but not state-wide. If I've mis-understood what you meant, could you please clarify? Thanks! Stephen!Coming... 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and thanks for asking. The coverage could be in Alaska or New York, it does not matter. What does matter is the coverage in the article has to be significant. A short article, an article that is just announcing his running, or about another that just mentions him is not significant coverage. My best to you... ttonyb (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears to come down to whether or not the coverage is significant, correct?
This source [1] seems to obviously be significant. It is more than a trivial mention (substantial coverage in fact), addresses the subject in detail, and no additional research is needed to extract the content. The ADN is the only newspaper in Anchorage (280,000 residents) and is definitely reliable. This source has been published in the other major Alaskan cities as well, Fairbanks and Juneau. [2][3]
Now as the number of sources vary depending on the depth of coverage (and there are only two sentences currently in the article) it would seem to me that there is no necessity for a large amount of sources. However, to back up the other article, there is other coverage as well. KTUU, a telelvision station, aired this [4] smaller, but not trivial, and the Alaska Dispatch has this [5]. My challenger also said that the subject lacked GNews hits of substance. I would beg to disagree [6]. The point I'm trying to make is that because there is a significant source about the subject and other sources back up this source, the coverage can be classified as significant. I'm new to all these Wikipedian rules but I see no reason why this article should be deleted. It would seem to be injustice when an article like this [7] with no sources is permitted. IFeelLikeIAmGoingToThrowUp (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As I predicted some time ago, it is now becoming the case that we are able to find substantial newspaper coverage of not just every major party candidate for a national or state office, but of many of the primary candidates. If we follow the GNG, they are notable. Since at worst some such people at least will happen to be notable, I do not see how we could exclude the possibility of using the GNG as at least an auxiliary justification. I am not sure I really like the result, but I don;t see what else to do.` DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At this point, he seems to meet the basic criteria of WP:BIO. At the risk of having people shoot me down per WP:CRYSTAL, I would also suggest that it stands to reason that his notability per BIO will only increase in the weeks and months leading up to the primary. This is for a seat in the United States House of Representatives, not some local council election. Also, while this is only a primary, the winner is all but guaranteed to win the general election, the Dems have approximately a snowball's chance in hell of winning Alaska's House seat. Wine GuyTalk 11:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.